Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chapter contents
Introduction: three paradigmatic works
13
17
Reader's guide
This chapter traces the evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) as a subfield of Inter
national Relations (IR) from its beginnings in the 1950s through its classical period
until 1993; it then sketches the research agenda of contemporary FPA, which is repre
sented by the other chapters in this volume. Three paradigmatic works, by Richard
Snyder and colleagues, James Rosenau, and Harold and Margaret Sprout, laid the
foundation of this subfield. In turn, these works created three main threads of re
search in FPA, focusing on the decision making of small/large groups, comparative
foreign policy, and psychological/sociological explanations of foreign policy. These
three primary areas of research have waxed and waned in importance to the subfield
over the years. Current FPA scholarship explores linkages between these literatures,
seeking both greater cross-level integration of explanation and new methodologies
more appropriate to cross-level analysis.1
VALERIE M. HUDSON
foreign policy
The strategy or approach chosen by the national governm ent to achieve its goals in its
H aro ld and
M arg aret Sp ro u t (1956: exp and ed and revised in a rtic le fo rm in 1957) a n d th e ir 1965
b ook
The w o rk o f Rich ard S n yd e r and his co llea g u es in sp ire d re se a rch e rs to lo o k b elo w the
nation-state level o f analysis to th e p layers in v o lve d :
W e adhere to the nation-state as the fun d am ental level o f analysis, y e t w e h ave discarded
the state as a m etaphysical abstraction. B y em phasizing d ecisio n m aking as a cen tral focus
w e have provided a w ay o f organizing th e d eterm in an ts o f a ctio n aro u nd th o se officials who
act for the political society. D ecision m akers are view e d as o p eratin g in dual-aspect setting
so that apparently unrelated internal and external facto rs b eco m e related in th e actions of
the decision makers. H itherto, precise w ays o f re latin g d o m estic facto rs h ave n o t been ad
equately developed. (Sn yd er etal. 1954; 53)
Jam es R o s e a u
fnternatidrtai M U k s by
Richard C . Snyder, H.W.
Development of actor-specific
the decision-making
development of generalizable
middle-range theory
in decision making
*jA
Source: Princeton University Library. Princeton University Archives, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections,
Princeton University Library.
VALERIE M. HUDSON
In tak in g th is a p p ro a ch , Snyder an d his co lleag u es b eq u ea th e d to FPA its characteristic
em p h asis o n fo re ig n p o lic y
p o licy
outcomes. D eci
psycho-milieu
o f th e in d iv id u a ls a n d g ro u p s m a k in g th e fo re ig n p o lic y
probable
m o tiv a tio n s a n d p u r
assumptions
as to th e w a y p e o p le a re lik e ly o n th e a v e ra g e to
VALERIC M. HUDSON
Harold and Margaret Sprout who emphasized the psychological milieu of individual and group decision making.
Source; C Priceton University Library. Princeton University Archives, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections,
Princeton University Library.
generation of w ork from about 1974 to 1993 expressly built upon those foundations. Though
it is alw ays difficult to set the boundaries of a field o f thought, the overview which follows
includes a representative sam pling o f classic w orks in the first and second generation which
both exam ined how the 'specifics' of nations lead to differences in foreign policy choice/behaviour, and put forw ard propositions in this regard th at at least have the potential to be
generalizable and app licable cross-nationally.
soc:ial psychology w e re in co rp o rated into FPA. It w as d isco vered that the m o tivatio n to m ain tain group
consensus and personal accp eta n ce b y the group co u ld result in a d eterio ra tio n o f d ecisio n -m aking
quality.
behaviour, as d isp a ra te
as w arfare, tre a ty m aking, o r d ip lo m a cy these even ts cou ld b e com p ared and aggregated. D a ta w as
co llected on a v a rie ty o f possib le ex p lan ato ry facto rs to d eterm in e pattern s b y w h ich th e se in d e p e n d e n t
variab les w e re co rrela te d . R esearch ers hoped to em erge w ith a grand u n ified th e o ry o f fo reig n p o lic y
b eh avio u r a p p lica b le to all n atio n s and tim e periods. The em p irical results w e re less th an th e p ro ta g o n ists
had hoped.
mind o f th e fo reig n
con d itio n s, in d ivid u a l ch a ra cte ristics w o u ld b eco m e cru cial in u n d erstan d in g h o w d ecisio n s a re m ad e.
Also, th e p ro b le m o f m isp erce p tio n w as id e n tifie d , w ith p o te n tial d isastrou s co n se q u e n ces in re la tio n to
qu estion s o f w a r and p eace.
Societal milieux
The so cie ta l co n tex t also cam e to th e fo re. R esearch ers ex am in ed h o w fa r n a tio n a l a ttrib u te s , su ch as
culture, history, g eo g rap h y, eco n o m ics, p o litic a l in stitu tio n s, m ilita ry p o w er, id e o lo g y, a n d d e m o g ra p h ics,
d eterm in ed p o lic y m aking. T h e n atu re o f reg im e ty p e also rose in p ro m in e n ce , p a rtic u la rly w ith th e
realizatio n th a t d e m o c ra c ie s te n d e d n o t to fig h t w ith o n e an o th er.
VALERIE M. HUDSON
Sm all g ro u p d yn am ics
Som e o f the m ost theoretically long-lived w ork produced during this period centred on the
consequences o f m aking foreign p olicy decisions in sm all groups. So cial psychologists had
explored the unique dynam ics o f such a decision setting before, but never in relation to for
eign p o licy decision making, w here the stakes m ight be m uch higher. The m ost important
w ork is that o f Irving Janis, w hose sem inal
Victims of Groupthink
began this research tradition. In that volum e, and using studies d raw n sp ecifically from the
realm o f foreign policy, Jan is shows convincingly that th e m otivation to m aintain group con
sensus and personal acceptance by the group can cause d eterio ratio n o f decision-making
quality. The em pirical research o f Leana (1975), Sem m el (1982), Sem m el and M inix (1979),
Tetlock (1979), and others extended this research using aggregate analysis o f experimental
data as w ell as case studies. G ro u p th in k becom es one o f several possible outcom es in the
w ork o f C.F. H erm ann (1978). H erm ann categorizes groups alon g several dim ensions (size,
role o f leader, rules fo r decision, autonom y o f group participants), and is ab le to m ake general
predictions about the likely outcom e o f deliberations in each typ e o f group.
The work o f the second wave m oved 'beyond groupthink* to both refine and extend our under
standing o f small-group processes. Representative work includes Herek et al. (1987,1989), McCau
ley (1989), Ripley (1989), Stewart et al. (1989), H art (1990), Gaenslen (1992), and H art et al. (1997).
The second w ave also brought w ith it a n ew research issue. H o w does a group com e to un
derstand, represent, and fram e a given foreign po licy situ ation ? W o rks inclu d e those by George
Breslauer, Charles F. H erm ann, Donald Sylvan, Ph ilip Tetlock, and Ja m es Voss (Vertzberger
1990; Breslauer and Tetlock 1991; Voss et al. 1991 f Billings and H erm an n 1994). Turning to ef
forts b y individual scholars, w e w ill highlight the w ork o f Khong (1992) and Bo ynto n (1991).
Bo ynto n w ishes to understand how hum an agents in groups com e to agreem ent on the
nature o f a foreign p o licy situation. In his 1991 p aper (cited ab o ve), he uses th e official record
o f C ongressional C om m ittee hearings to investigate h o w com m ittee m em bers m ake sense of
cu rren t events and policies. By view in g the questions and responses in th e h earing as an un
fo ld ing narrative, Boynton is able to ch art h o w 'm ean ing' crystallizes fo r each committee
m em ber, and h o w th e y attem pt to share th at m eaning w ith o th e r m em bers and w ith those
w h o are testifying. Bo ynto n posits th e co n cep t o f 'in te rp re tive trip le ' as a w a y to understand
h o w con n ection s betw een facts are m ade through p lau sib le in te rp re ta tio n - in effect, ascer
tain in g w h ich interpretation s are p lausible w ith in th e so cial con tex t created b y the hearings.
((hong's 1992 book, Analogies
at War, has a
vis t vis o th e r o rg an i
et al.
c ite d w o rk s a re A llis o n (1 9 7 1 ) a n d H alp e rin (1974) (a d d itio n a l w o rks co-au tho red b y H a lp e rin
in c lu d e A llis o n a n d H a lp e rin (19 72) an d H alp erin and K an ter (1973)). In his fam o us
Decision,
Essence of
C u b a n M is s ile C risis o f 1962. In ve stig atin g b o th th e U S and th e S o vie t sides o f th is case, A lliso n
sh o w s th a t th e u n ita ry ra tio n a l- a cto r m o d el o f foreign p o licy m aking d o es n o t su ffice to ex
p la in th e c u rio s itie s o f th e crisis. O fferin g tw o ad d itio n al m odels as successive 'cu ts' a t ex p la
n a tio n , th e O rg a n iz a tio n a l Pro cess M o d el and th e Bu reau cratic Po litics M o d e l (o n e o f
in tra - o rg a n iz a tio n a l fa cto rs, an d o n e o f inter-organization al facto rs), a llo w s A lliso n to ex p lain
m o re fu lly w h a t tra n sp ire d . H is use o f th re e levels o f analysis also p o in ts to th e d esire to in te
g ra te ra th e r th a n seg reg ate ex p lan atio n s a t d ifferen t levels.
H a lp e rin 's b o o k
VALERIE M. HUDSON
being displayed, o r w hat instrum ents o f statecraft (d ip lo m a tic, m ilitary, econom ics, etc.) were
used m the influence attem pt, o r w h at level o f com m itm en t o f resources w as evid ent. Behav
io u r as disparate as a war, a treaty, o r a state visit cou ld n o w b e co m p ared
and aggregated in a
Events data
T h e co llectio n o f ev e n ts d a ta w as fund ed to a sign ifican t d eg ree b y th e U S g o vernm en t. An
d rio le and H o p p le (1981) estim ate th a t th e g o vern m en t (p rim a rily D efen se A d vanced Re
search Pro jects A g en cy and th e N atio n al Scie n ce F o u n d a tio n ) p ro vid ed o v e r $5 m illion for
th e d evelo p m en t o f events datasets d u rin g th e tim e p erio d 1967-1981. G e n e ra lly speaking,
th e co lle ctio n effo rt w e n t like this: students w e re em p lo yed to co m b th ro u g h newspapers,
ch ro n o lo g ies, and o th e r sources fo r fo reign p o licy events, w h ich th e y w o u ld th e n code ac
co rd in g to rules listed in th e ir co d in g m anuals, h ave th e ir co d in g p e rio d ic a lly checked fo r in
te rco d e r re liab ility, and fin a lly p u nch th e ir cod in gs up o n co m p u te r card s. F o r exam ple, if we
w an te d to co d e an e ven t such as 'T h e U SA invad ed A fg han istan ', w e w o u ld c o d e a d ate (DDMM Y Y Y Y ), th e a cto r (U S A ), th e su b ject (A fg h an istan ), and so m e c o d e o r series o f codes that
w o u ld in d ica te 'in vasio n '. A series o f cod es m igh t w o rk like th is: th e c o d e fo r in vasio n might
b e '317', th e '3' in d ica tin g th a t th is w as a h o stile a ct, th e '1 ' in d ica tin g it w a s a m ilita ry act, and
th e 7 ' in d ica tin g in m o re sp e cific fash io n in vasio n . M a n y o th e r va ria b le s co u ld also be coded;
fo r exam ple, w e m igh t co d e th a t th e U n ited N a tio n s fa cilita te d th e a c t b y sp o n so rin g a Secu
rity C o u n cil R eso lu tio n , w e m ight lin k in p revio u s eve n ts such as M u lla h O m ar's refusal to turn
in O sam a b in la d e n , and so fo rth . Even ts d a ta sets, th e n , c o n ta in th o u sa n d s o r even millions
o f lin es o f cod e, each o f w h ich is a fo reig n p o lic y 'e ve n t'.
T h e a cro n ym s o f so m e o f th ese even ts d a ta p ro je cts liv e o n : so m e b eca u se th e d ata are still
b ein g co lle cte d (e.g. G e rn e r et
is fu n d e d b y th e D D IR (D ata Devel
Integrated explanations
In co n trast to th e o th e r tw o typ e s o f FPA sch o larsh ip b ein g discussed, C F P research aim ed
ex p licitly a t integrated multilevel ex p lan atio n s. T h e fo u r m ost a m b itio u s o f th ese p ro je cts w e re
those o f B re c h e r (1 9 7 2 ) an d h is asso ciates in th e I BA P ro je ct (W ilk e n fe ld
(R u m m el 1972,1977), C R E O N (E a st et
al.
1978; C allah an
et al.
et al. 1980),
DON
1982), an d H a ro ld Guetzkow's
tabula rasa:
related in fo rm a tio n a n d p attern s, such as beliefs, attitu d es, values, ex p erien ces, e m o tio n s ,
traits, style , m em o ry, n a tio n a l, a n d self-co ncep tio n s. Each d ecisio n m aker's m in d is a m ic ro
cosm o f th e v a rie ty p o ssib le in a g iven so ciety. C u ltu re, history, geograp hy, e c o n o m ic s, p o liti
cal in stitu tio n s, id e o lo g y, d em o g rap h ics, and in n u m erab le o th e r fa cto rs sh a p e th e s o c ie ta l
co n tex t in w h ic h th e d e c is io n m ak er o p erates. T h e Sp ro u ts (1 9 5 6 ,1 9 5 7 ,1 9 6 5 ) re fe rre d to
th ese as th e m ilie u o f d e c is io n m aking, an d sch o la rly effo rts to ex p lo re th a t m ilie u w e re b o th
in n o v a tiv e a n d im p re ssive d u rin g th is first p erio d . M ich a e l B rech er's w o rk c ite d a b o v e (B re
ch e r 1972) b e lo n g s in th is g e n o ty p e as w e ll. Brech er's
ex
p lo res th a t n a tio n 's p sych o - cu ltu ral e n viro n m e n t an d its effects o n Israel's fo re ig n p o licy .
U n lik e B re c h e r's in te g ra tiv e a p p ro a c h to th e p sycho -social m ilie u , m o st w o rk s in th is g e n o
ty p e ex a m in ed e ith e r th e p sy c h o lo g ic a l asp ects o f F P D M , o r its b ro a d e r so c ie ta l asp ects.
Individual characteristics
W o u ld th e re b e a d is tin c t fie ld o f fo re ig n p o lic y a n a lysis w ith o u t th is m o st m ic ro o f a ll ex
p la n a to ry le v e ls ? A rg u a b ly n o t. It is in th e co g n itio n a n d in fo rm a tio n p ro ce ssin g o f a n a ctu a l
hum an a g e n t th a t a ll th e e x p la n a to ry le ve ls o f F P A a re in re a lity in te g rate d . W h a t sets F P A
ap art fro m m o re m a in s tre a m IR is th is in siste n ce th a t, as H e rm a n n a n d K eg ley p u t it, '[a ] c o m
p ellin g e x p la n a tio n (o f fo re ig n p o lic y ) c a n n o t tre a t th e d e c id e r e x o g e n o u sly' (1 9 9 4 :4 ).
P o litic a l p s y c h o lo g y ca n assist us in u n d e rsta n d in g th e d ecid e r. U n d e r c e rta in c o n d itio n s
high stress, h ig h u n c e rta in ty , d o m in a n t p o sitio n o f th e h ea d o f sta te in F P D M th e p e rso n a l
ch a ra cte ristics o f th e in d iv id u a l w ill b e c o m e c ru c ia l in u n d e rsta n d in g fo re ig n p o lic y c h o ic e .
VALERIE M. HUDSON
The w ork o f Harold Lasswell on political leadership was a significant influence on m any early
pioneers o f political psychology w ith reference to foreign policy (see Lasswell, 1930,1948).
Joseph de Rivera's
and integration o f early attem pts to apply psychological and social psychological theory to
foreign policy cases. Another early effort at a system atic study o f leader personality effects is
the concept of operational code, an idea originating w ith Leites (1951), and refined and ex
tended by one o f the m ost im portant figures in this area o f researchAlexander George
(1969). Defining an operational code involves identifying the core political beliefs of the
leader about the inevitability o f conflict in the w orld, the leader's estim ation o f his or her own
pow er to change events, and so forth, as w ell as an exploration o f the preferred means and
style o f pursuing goals (see also O. Holsti 1977; Johnson 1977; W alker 1977). It should be
noted th at George's influence on the field is by no means confined to his w ork on operational
codes; he has offered useful suggestions on m ethodological issues (see George on process
tracing (George 1979), on the dem erits o f abstract theorizing versus actor-specific theory
(George and Sm oke 1974; George 1993), and on the need to bridge the gap between theory
and practice in foreign policy (George 1993,1994).
The w ork o f M argaret G. Herm ann is likewise an attem pt to typologize leaders w ith spe
cific reference to foreign policy dispositions. A psychologist by training, she w as also in
volved in a C FP project (CREO N ). However, the core o f her research is leaders' personal
characteristics (Herm ann 1970, 1978). Using a m odified operational code fram ew ork in
conjunction w ith content analysis, she is able to com pare and contrast leaders' beliefs, mo
tivations, decisional styles, and interpersonal styles. Furtherm ore, Herm ann integrates this
inform ation into a m ore holistic picture of the leader, w ho m ay belong to one o f six distinct
fo reig n policy orientations'. O rientation allows her to make m ore specific projections about
a leader's behaviour in a variety o f circum stances, in the second w ave o f research, scholars
began to explicitly com pare and contrast the findings o f different personality assessment
schem es (W in te r
etal. 1991; Singer and Hudson 1992; Snare 1992; see also W in te r 1973;
Po st1990).
The role o f perceptions and images in foreign policy was a very im portant research agenda
in this first generation o f FPA. The w ork o f both Robert Je rvis and Richard Cottam deserves
special m ention here.Jervis's Perception and Misperception in
Cottam 's Foreign
et al.
(1968)). U kejanis, Halperin, and others, the w ork o f Je rvis and Cottam is consciously pre
scriptive: both include advice and suggestions fo r policy makers. W o rk in the late 1980s
continuing this tradition included scholarship b yjan ice Gross Stein, Richard Ned Lebow, Ole
Holsti, Alexander George, Deborah W elch Larson, Betty Glad, and Stephen W a lt (as well as
Jervis
et al. 1985; Larson 1985,1993; M. Cottam 1986; Glad 1989; George and Sm oke 1989;
O. Holsti 1989; Lebow and Stein 1990; W alt 1992). An excellent exam ple o f w ork in this pe
riod is that of Richard Herrm ann (1985,1986,1993), w ho developed a typology o f stereotyp
ical images with reference to Soviet perceptions (the other as 'child', as 'degenerate', etc.) and
began to extend his analysis to the images held by other nations, including Am erican and
Islam ic images.
h eu ristic error. M a n y
o th e r im p o rta n t c o g n itiv e an d p sych o lo g ica l stu dies w h ich a p p e ared d u rin g th e 1970s and
early 1980s d e a lt w ith a d iv e rs ity o f facto rs: m o tivatio n s o f lead ers (B a rb e r 1972; W in te r 1973;
Eth ere d g e 1978), c o g n itiv e m ap s, scripts, an d sch em as (Sh a p iro and B o n h a m 1973; A xelrod
1976, C a rb o n e ll 1978), c o g n itiv e sty le (Su e d fe ld an d T etlo ck 1977); life ex p erie n ce o f lead ers
(S te w a rt 1977), a n d o th e rs. G o o d e d ite d c o lle c tio n s o f th e tim e in clu d e H erm an n (19 77) an d
Falko w ski (1 9 7 9 ).
et al.
1979). T h e m e th o d o lo g y o f
Re
et al.
et al. (1989). A
se co n d w a v e o f research in
VALERIE M. HUDSON
lIlflflM ( I W y ) to t
ln to r ftfln g f O frihln*tiO fi
foreign
policy choice. Using aggregate statistical analysis, Hagan Is able to show, for example, that the
internal fragmentation of a regime has substantially less effect on foreign policy behaviour
than military or party opposition to the regime.
Domestic political imperatives could also be ascertained by probing elite and mass opinion
(again, piggy-backing onto the sophisticated voter-attitude studies of American politics).
Though usually confined to studies of democratic nations (especially America, where survey
research results were abundant), these analyses were used to Investigate the limits of the socalled Almond-Lippman consensus-that is, that public opinion Is Incoherent and lacking
unity on foreign policy issues, and thus that public opinion does not have a large impact on
the nation's conduct of foreign policy (see Bailey 1948; Almond 1950; Llppman 1955; Camp
bell et al. 1964; Converse 1964; Upset 1966). Opinion data collected during the Vietnam War
period appears to have served as a catalyst to re-examine this question. Caspary (1970) and
Achen (1975) found more stability in American public opinion concerning foreign policy and
international involvement than their predecessors. Mueller (1973) used the Vietnam War to
show that although the public may change their opinions on international issues, they do so
for rational reasons. Holsti and Rosenau (1979) and Mandelbaum and Schneider (1979) used
survey data to identify recognizable ideological positions to which the public subscribes on
foreign policy issues. A large amount of research was undertaken to show that public and elite
opinion does affect governmental foreign policy decision making (see Cantril 1967; Verba et
al. 1967; Graber 1968; Verba and Brody 1970; Hughes 1978; Yankelovich 1979; Beal and
Hinckley 1984).
The study of the effect of national attributes (size, wealth, political accountability, eco
nomic system, etc.) on foreign policy was certainly, in a theoretical sense, in the Sprout geno
type, but was carried out by scholars and with methods more to be placed in the Rosenau
genotype (if you exclude pre-Rosenau writers such as Lenin). The propensity to be involved in
war was usually the foreign policy dependent variable of choice in this work (see Rummel
1972,1977,1979; Kean and McGowan 1973; East and Hermann 1974; East 1978; Salmore and
Salmore 1978; for a more holistic treatment, see Korany 1986).
The questions raised by these theorists are fascinating. Are large nations more likely to go
to war than small nations? Are rich nations more likely to go to war than poor ones? Are au
thoritarian regimes more bellicose than democracies? Statistical manipulation of aggregate
data, at best a blunt instrument, was unable to uncover any lawlike generalizations on this
score (though for an interesting and hard-to-dassify treatment of the multilevel causes and
effects of war, see Beer (1981)). Political economy research on the effects of economic struc
tures and conditions on foreign policy choice are fairly rare: the 'culture' of I PE and the 'cul
ture' of FPA did not mix well, for reasons explored below. However, the works of Neil
Richardson and Charles Kegley (e.g. Richardson and Kegley 1980) and Peter Katzenstein (e g
Katzenstein 1985) are notable as exceptions to this generalization.
non-dem ocracies do. This appeared to be an exam ple of how a difference in polity type pro
duced a d ifferen ce in foreign p o licy behaviour (Russett 1993a,b). This has been a particularly
interesting bridging question fo r FPA and IR (and is examined further in Chapter Three). W h y
do dem ocracies n o t fight o n e ano th er? H ere w e find m ore abstract theorists of w ar (M erritt
and Zinnes 1991; M organ 1992; Brem er 1993; Dixon 1993; Ray 1993; M aoz and Russett 1993)
w restling w ith a qu estion th at leads them into FPA waters and into conversation w ith FPA
scholars (H agan 1994; H erm ann and Kegley 1995).
Finally, if it is possib le to see the international system as part of the psycho-social m ilieu in
w h ich foreign p o licy d ecisio n m aking takes place, then the work of much of m ainstream IR at
this tim e can b e seen as con trib u tin g to the Foreign Policy Analysis research agenda. The ef
fects o f system typ e, as elu cid ated b y Kaplan (1957,1972), m ay depend on the num ber of
poles in the system , th e distribution o f pow er am ong poles, and the rules of the system game
th at perm it its m ainten an ce. This structure m ay then determ ine to a large extent the range of
p erm issible fo reign p o licy b ehaviour o f nations. The w ork of W altz was extrem ely influential
in its d escrip tio n o f th e effects o f an anarchical w orld system on the behaviour o f its m em ber
states (see also H offm ann 1961; Rosecrance 1963; Singer
et al.
em phasize th is typ e o f explanation, prim arily because the variation in behaviour during the
tim e w h en a certain system is m aintained cannot be explained by reference to system struc
tu re b ecause th e structure has not changed. Explanation o f that variation must be found at
lo w er levels o f analysis, w h ere variation in the explanations can be identified. Here, then, is
o n e o f several sources fo r th e notable lack of integration between actor-general systems
th e o ry in IR an d FPA.
V A L E R IE
M. HUDSON
decision making can be made; (b ) innovative at-a-distance ind icators o f d o sed group/bureaucracy process can be developed, w hich a llo w fo r m ore specific expianation/prediction of
eta/.
1987; H erm ann and Peacock 1987; Sm ith 1987). A t o n e p o in t, in exasp eration, Kegley
(1980: 12), him self a CFPer, chides, 'C FP risks being lab elled a c u lt o f m ethod ological
flagellomaniacs'.
This searing criticism and self-criticism revealed a n um b er o f in co n siste n cie s in th e CFP
approach, w hich needed to be sorted o u t b efo re a n y progress co u ld b e co n tem p lated . The
stum bling blocks includ ed th e fo llo w in g:
1. Vou
can't have your parsimony and eat it, too. Th e ten sio n
b etw ee n th e d esire o f
To qu a n tify o r no t to q u an tify? A
e a rlie r, C F P h a d
re c e iv e d a la rg e a m o u n t o f m o n e y fro m th e g o v e rn m e n t to c re a te e v e n ts d a ta se ts. C F P
re s e a rc h e rs s u c c e s s fu lly a rg u e d th a t su ch an in v e stm e n t w o u ld y ie ld in fo rm a tio n o f u se
to fo re ig n p o lic y m a k e rs. S p e c ific a lly , ev e n ts d a ta w o u ld b e u sed to se t u p e a rly w a rn in g
sy ste m s th a t w o u ld a le rt p o lic y m ak ers to crises in th e m a k in g a ro u n d th e w o rld (a s if th e y
d o n o t a ls o re a d th e sa m e so u rc e s fro m w h ic h e v e n ts d a ta c o rn e l).
C o m p u te riz e d d e c is io n a id s a n d a n a lysis p ackag es w ith te llta le a cro n y m s b eg a n to a p p e a r
E W A M S (E a r ly W a rn in g a n d M o n ito rin g Syste m ); C A S C O N (C o m p u te r- A id e d S y s te m s fo r
H a n d lin g In fo rm a tio n o n L o c a l C o n flic ts ); C A C IS (C o m p u te r- A id e d C o n flic t In fo rm a tio n S y s
te m ); X A ID S (C ris is M a n a g e m e n t E x e cu tive D e cisio n A id s) (se e A n d rio le a n d H o p p le 1 98 1).
U n fo rtu n a te ly , th e s e c o u ld n e v e r liv e u p to th e ir p ro m ise : th e c o lle c te d e v e n ts c o u ld b e h a d
fro m o th e r s o u rc e s a n d so w e re n o th in g w ith o u t th e th e o ry to ex p lain a n d p re d ic t th e ir o c
c u rre n ce . T h e m e th o d o lo g ic a l p a ra d o x es e x p lica te d a b o v e re su lte d in th e o ry th a t w a s stu ck ,
b y a n d larg e, a t th e le v e l o f g lo b a lly a p p lic a b le b u t s p e c ific a lly va c u o u s b iv a ria te g e n e ra liz a
tio n s su ch as th a t 'la rg e n a tio n s p a rtic ip a te m o re in in te rn a tio n a l in te ra c tio n s th a n sm a ll n a
tio n s' (s e e M c G o w a n a n d S h a p iro 1973). A g a in , C F P fo u n d its e lf p u lle d in tw o o p p o s e d
d ire c tio n s : W a s th e re s e a rc h g o a l to say s o m e th in g p re d ic tiv e a b o u t a s p e c ific n a tio n a t a
sp e cific tim e in a s p e c ific se t o f c irc u m sta n c e s (w h ic h w o u ld b e h ig h ly p o lic y re le v a n t, b u t
w h ich m ig h t c lo s e ly re s e m b le th e o u tp u t o f a tra d itio n a l c o u n try e x p e rt)? O r w a s th e g o a l a
gran d u n ifie d th e o ry (w h ic h w o u ld n o t b e v e ry p o lic y re le v a n t, b u t w h ic h w o u ld q u a lify y o u
as a scie n tist a n d a g e n e ra lis t)? A tte m p ts to a cc o m p lish b o th w ith th e sa m e re sea rch led to
p ro d u cts th a t w e re u n s a tis fa c to ry in a sc h o la rly as w e ll as a p o lic y sense.
H in d sig h t is a lw a y s 20/20; it d o e s seem c le a r in re tro s p e ct th a t ch a n g e w as n ecessary. Le ft
b eh in d w e re (1 ) th e a im o f a g ra n d u n ifie d th e o ry, a n d (2 ) th e m e th o d o lo g ica l stra itja c k e t
im p o sed b y th e re q u ire m e n t o f a g g re g ate e m p iric a l testin g . In 1980, K eg ley sp o k e o f th e n ee d
VALERIE M. HUDSON
to com e dow n from the ra rifled a ir o f grand th e o ry to m id d le-rang e theo ry, and to capture
m ore o f th e p articular.
To succeed partially is not to fall co m p le te ly.. . . G oals (should b e) dow ngraded to better
fit capacities.
. This prescribes reduction In the level o f gen erality sought, so that more
tain ty and flux, lack o f e m p irica lly gro u nd ed inp u ts to ra tio n a l c h o ic e eq u a tio n s is d eadly in
term s o f th e usefulness o f such analysis. O u r in tu itiv e u n d e rstan d in g o f th e co llap se involves
variables m o re to be fo un d in FPA : th e p erso n alitie s o f G o rb a ch e v, H a v e l, a n d W alesa; the
activities o f tran sn atio n al groups such as th e Lu th eran C h u rch an d th e G re e n M o vem en t; the
struggles b etw een vario u s d o m estic p o litica l p layers, such as th e m ilitary, th e Com m unist
Party, th e bureaucrats, etc.; th e ro le o f eco n o m ics an d so cie ta l n eeds in sp ark in g th e desire for
change, etc. W ith th e fall o f th e Iro n C u rtain , th e need fo r an 'a cto r- sp e cific' com p lem en t to
m ainstream IR th e o ry b ecam e stark in Its clarity.
FPA in th e post C o ld W a r era retains th e d istin ctiv e th e o re tic a l co m m itm en ts th a t dem ar
cated at its incep tio n . In clu d ed am o n g these are:
questions, n ew possi
b ilities, to regard o ld prob lem s from a n ew angle, requires creative im agination and w orks
real a d va n ce in science*.
In o rd e r to see this ad vance, let us exam ine som e o f the n ew questions th at h ave evo lved
from th e o ld . A s a d eta iled o ve rvie w o f FPA scholarship from 1993 to th e present can be fo un d
in H ud so n (20 0 5 ,2 0 0 7 ), let us n o w turn to the m icro-levels o f analysis and then m ove tow ard
m acro-levels.
New questions
W h e n stu d yin g th e effects o f in d iv id u a l lead ers on foreign p o licy decision m aking, th e key
q u estio n is w h e th e r w e can extend o u r understanding o f h ow a leader's p erso n ality affects
fo reig n p o lic y th ro u g h d eterm in in g its effect on ch o ice o f advisors, p referen ce fo r issues,
p refe ren ce fo r ce rta in group processes, and so fo rth ? M oreover, can w e integrate d ifferen t
a n a ly tic a l sch em es fo r an alysin g lead er perso nality and its effects? W h a t are th e ram ificatio n s
o f n e w b reak th ro u g h s in n e u ro sc ie n c e fo r FPA ? H o w d o vario us lead er p erso n ality typ es
sh ap e th e stru ctu re and process o f groups serving th em ?
A t th e g ro u p le v e l, w e m ust then ask h o w problem s are actu ally recognized b y th e g ro u p ?
H o w a re situ a tio n s 'fram ed ' and 'rep resen ted '? H o w are o p tio ns d evelo p e d ? H o w d o es a
g ro u p c o m e to sh a re an in terp retatio n o f th e situ atio n ? H o w does a group chan ge an estab
lish ed in te rp re ta tio n ? H o w does a group learn ? H o w is th e group's p o ten tial fo r c re a tivity
en h a n ce d o r d a m p e n e d ? H o w d oes group m em o ry affect group a ctio n ? H o w d o groups b e
c o m e p la ye rs in th e 'tw o - le vel g am e'? H o w are group stru ctu re and process a fu n ctio n o f so
c ie ta l c u ltu re ?
A t th e le v e l o f s o c ie ty a n d p o litic a l c o m p e titio n , w e ex p lo re w h e th e r w e can u n co ve r
th e s o c ie ta l so u rce s o f c h a n g e in sh ared p e rce p tio n s? Fo r exam p le, h o w d o a ttitu d es o f
lea d ers a n d p u b lic s ch a n g e as co n te x t ch a n g es? C an n atio n a l ro le c o n ce p tio n b e re-co n fig
u red to se rve as th e th e o re tic a l in te rfa c e b etw ee n a so c ie ty and th e in d ivid u a l m em b ers o f
th a t s o c ie ty w h o c o m e to le a d it an d m ake its fo reig n p o lic y d e cisio n s? C an w e sp e cify th e
e ffe c t o n fo re ig n p o lic y o f d o m e s tic p o litic a l c o m p e titio n ? C an w e co m p le te th e th e o re tica l
c irc le an d sp e c ify th e e ffe c ts o n d o m e s tic p o litic s o f th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f a ce rta in fo reign
p o lic y c h o ic e ? H o w c a n w e d is ce rn cu ltu re 's in flu e n c e o n fo reig n p o lic y ? D oes ty p e o f p o
litic a l system im p a c t o n fo re ig n p o lic y ? W h a t is th e effect o f system ic ch an g e on fo reig n
p o lic y ?
VALERIK M. HUDSON
An Atlantic divide?
W h ile th ere are n ew efforts to both catalo gu e and p ro m o te th e a n a ly tic a l stu d y o f foreign
p o licy in th e G lob al South (B ru m m er 2011; G iacalo n e 2011; Z h a n g 2011), a t th is p o in t such
study is p red o m in an tly o f A tlan tic origins. This raises th e q u estio n o f w h e th e r th e re are im
p o rtan t d ifferen ces in th e w a y such studies are co n d u cted in th e U S A co m p ared w ith Euro
pean cou n tries, to w h ich an affirm ative answ er can b e given. In a re ce n t o v e rv ie w o f such
d ifferen ces (H a d field and H udson 2011), th e authors p o in t o u t several d istin ctio n s betw een
FPA (A m e rica n ) and w h a t th e y term A FP (th e analysis o f fo reig n p o licy, Eu ro p ea n ). This issue
is o f in terest to th e readers o f this vo lum e, fo r a b o u t h alf o f its au th o rs a re A m erican and
a b o u t h a lf are European.
H ad field and H udson n o te a greater em phasis on co g n itive ly o rie n te d th e o rie s in FPA than
in AFP, as w e ll as th e m ore freq u en t use o f q u an tita tive m eth o d s b y A m e rica n s an d historical
process-tracing b y Europeans. T h ey also n o te a cle a r p refe ren ce fo r th e use o f A m erica n cases
b y A m erican scholars, w h ich , w h ile n o t unexpected and also u n d e rstan d a b le , also bears pre
d ictab le con seq uences fo r theory-b uilding. Fo r exam ple, Z h a n g (2 0 1 1) fin d s th a t in th e Chi
nese case, b ein g 'id e o lo g ica l' and bein g 'p ra ctica l' a re n o t o x ym o ro n ic term s, w h ereas in
A m erican-in sp ired theory, such p erso n ality o rien ta tio n s a re seen as p re c lu d in g o n e another.
H ad field and H ud so n also n o te a g reater sense o f c o m m u n ity a m o n g A m e ric a n FPA scholars,
w h ich th e y a ttrib u te to th e sm all n um b er o f g rad u ate p ro g ram m es tra in in g F P A scholars in
th a t co u n try; th e y a re all lik ely to kn o w o n e a n o th e r w ith in o n e o r tw o d eg rees o f separation.
Turning to th e Eu ro p ean context, th e re are alm o st n o g ra d u ate p ro g ram m es th a t em phasize
FPA/AFP, and so as y e t sch olars h ave n o t b een a b le to c re a te a c ritic a l s o c ia l m ass th a t is the
p rereq u isite fo r an ep istem ic com m u n ity. Fin ally, H ad fie ld an d H u d so n suggest th a t A FP is far
m o re th e o re tica lly in clu sive th an FPA has b een to d ate, e m b ra cin g n o t o n ly actor-specific
theo ries, b u t also grand th e o ry and co n stru ctivist a p p ro a ch es. F o r ex am p le, o n e is not likely
to see a referen ce to th e w o rk o f R o y Bhaskar in A m e rica n FPA lite ra tu re , w h ile such a refer
en ce m ight b e ve ry lik e ly in A F P w o rk.
et a i
et al.
et al.
2011: 5). In
Key points
Foreign policy analysis takes as its theoretical ground the human decision makers, acting singly and
in groups, who make foreign policy.
Three paradigm atic works laid the foundation of FPA-Richard Snyder and colleagues on decision
making, Jam es Rosenau on comparative foreign policy, and Harold and Margaret Sprout on the
psycho-social milieu of foreign policy decision making.
Several emphases, corresponding to levels of analysis in FPA, began to emerge from this
foundation, including work on small/large groups, events data, political psychology of leaders,
cultural effects on foreign policy, the effects of domestic political contestation on FPDM, and the
influence o f national attributes and systemic characteristics on FPB.
FPA retains its emphases on actor-specific theory, multicausal explanations, interdisciplinanty. and
the explanations of foreign policy processes, as well as foreign policy outcomes
Current FPA scholarship explores linkages between the levels of FPA analysis, and combines that with
a search for new methodologies that are more appropriate for actor-specific theoretical investigation.
VALERIE M. HUDSON
Questions
1. W h at are the key hallmarks o f FPA?
2. W hat is the difference between foreign policy and foreign policy behaviour?
3. W hat are the prim ary levels of analysis examined in FPA?
4. W hat did Richard Snyder and his colleagues contribute to FPA's foundations?
5. W hat did Jam es Rosenau contribute to FPA's foundations?
6. W hat did Harold and M argaret Sprout contribute to FPA's foundations?
7. W hat is events data and how is it used in FPA?
8. W hat is com parative foreign policy (C FP)?
9. W h y did FPA enter a period of self-reflection in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and w hat was the result?
10. W h at kinds of questions are being asked in FPA research today? H ow effective and/or necessary are
'bridging techniques' between IR and FPA?
1 * Further reading
C ap o ra so , J.A ., H e rm a n n , C.F., an d K e g le y, C .W . (1 9 8 7 ), 'T h e C o m p a ra tiv e S tu d y o f Fo reig n Policy:
P e rs p e c tiv e s o n th e F u tu re ',
This is an interesting piece, from a historical point o f view, as it attem pts to engage international
political econom y (IP E ) w ith FPA.
G arrison, J. (e d .) (2 0 0 3 ), 'Foreign P o licy A nalysis in 20/20',
This special issue o f ISR features a variety o f FPA scholars discussing the future prospects of FPA as a
field o f study.
G e rn e r, D .J. (1 9 9 2 ), 'F o re ig n P o lic y A n a ly sis: E x h ila ra tin g E c le c tic is m , In trig u in g En ig m as',
York:
R o w m a n a n d L ittle fie ld ).
This textbook not only covers the history o f FPA, but also seven levels o f analysis, as w ell as a
discussion o f integrative efforts in the field.
N e ack , L , H e y J.A ., a n d H a n e y , P .J. (1 9 9 5 ),
Second Generation (E n g le w o o d
Thts ed ite d vo lu m e served as a tex tb o o k in m an y FPA classes fro m 1995 to 2005, an d includes chapter
o n n e a rly all levels o f an alysis, as w e ll as su b jects such as e ve n ts d ata.
the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book for more information:
www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/smith_foreign/